March 18, 2010

She Said, He Said: Gasiorkiewicz refutes Herrera

UPDATE, March 19: It appears that Georgia Herrera's campaign was blindsided by UW-Parkside, which is now "retracting" its former "thorough check" of employment records relating to Herrera's judicial opponent, Gene Gasiorkiewicz -- upon which Herrera based one of her statements that Gasiorkiewicz had inflated his resume for the campaign.

Herrera today released the following letter, dated yesterday, from Dennis M. Rome, interim associate provost at UW-P, which says:
Upon receiving further details and looking into this matter more extensively, I would like to provide you with the following statement:

The University of Wisconsin System records indicate that Mr. Eugene Gasiorkiewicz was employed in a Lecturer position at UW-Parkside in the academic year 1977-78.

I would like to retract my previous letter which read: "After a thorough check of our human resources system, we have determined that we have no record of attorney Eugene Gasiorkiewicz teaching any course or employed in any other way at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside."

I apologize for any inconvenience which this may have caused.
Herrera's latest statement on the matter is at the bottom of this post.

Original post:

The race for the Circuit Court seat to be vacated by Judge Stephen Simanek has escalated to a new level. Or has it descended? You decide.

Instead of lists of endorsements, the campaign turned nasty yesterday, as Georgia Herrera charged Gene Gasiorkiewicz, her opponent in the April 6 election, with "a concerning pattern of misleading statements."

Among other things, Herrera says Gasiorkiewicz falsely lists himself on campaign literature as a "former special prosecutor" in the Racine County District Attorney's office. But after searching public records on CCAP (the Wisconsin Consolidated Court Automation Program), Herrera says there is "no record of him ever being a prosecutor."

Herrera also says that Gasiorkiewicz claims he lectured at UW-Parkside, but "a public records request" she filed with the university found "no record of him ever teaching at Parkside."

Gasiorkiewicz calls Herrera's charges "a desperate attempt...to make herself look more qualified by resorting to negative political attacks," adding, "I was practicing and lecturing on law before she was out of high school."

He lists three periods of time in the 1970s and '80s when he served as a prosecutor, and notes a reason why Herrera might have failed to find any records on CCAP: "Racine County only began using the CCAP system in 1992."

As for Herrera's statement that he never taught at UW-Parkside, Gasiorkiewicz tonight submitted to RacinePost a letter written today by Sylvia Coronado-Romero, UW-Parkside director of Human Resources, stating: "The University of Wisconsin System records indicate that Mr. Eugene A. Gasiorkiewicz was employed in a Lecturer position at UW-Parkside in academic year 1977-78."

Georgia Herrera's statement, March 17:
The voters rightly expect that judicial candidates won’t mislead them. I believe the public rightly holds us to the highest standard in our campaign statements and literature.

I wouldn’t raise this issue if it was one incident, but I have now seen a concerning pattern of misleading statements from my opponent on several issues.

First, his campaign mailed a post card just days ago that purported to list the “number of cases handled in circuit court” with a bar graph, citing CCAP as the source. My opponent must know that CCAP doesn’t show the attorney handling juvenile cases, guardianship cases, or mental health cases, all of which I’ve handled over that time period. More importantly, he apparently neglected to show the number of cases I’d handled as Circuit Court Commissioner during the same time period. As Circuit Court Commissioner I’ve handled thousands of cases since 1999. I have the court calendars to show it, and as example in 2009 I handled 1,678 cases as Circuit Court Commissioner. In 2008 I handled 2204 cases as Circuit Court Commissioner. Even that doesn’t tell the whole story. As Assistant District Attorney I tried hundreds of cases to conclusion. His “Number of Cases Handled in Circuit Court” bar graph distorts my significant career and experience.

Second, my opponent’s campaign literature and web page claim he was a “Racine County Prosecutor” and was a “Former Special Prosecutor – Racine County District Attorney’s office.”

I worked in the Racine County District Attorney’s office as a prosecutor for over a decade, and never heard of him ever working there or being appointed “special prosecutor.” I checked CCAP because it has the ability to search for cases by prosecuting attorney, and it says it has no record of him ever being prosecutor. We did a public records request for whatever record existed in the Racine County Circuit Court Clerk’s office and the District Attorney’s office of him working as a prosecutor, and the response we received was the County has no such record. I understand he may claim he had one incident referred to him well over 20 years ago to prosecute a battery misdemeanor because the victim was then an employee of the DA’s office, but he never filed a case according to court records, and he apparently just dismissed it. This record clearly does not describe an attorney being a “Racine County Prosecutor.”

Third, his campaign literature claims he was a labor law lecturer at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside. We asked Parkside in a public records request, and found that school has no record of him ever teaching at Parkside. His campaign materials are all over the County misleading the public on this asserted qualification. It is an important qualification issue.

I’ve taught constitutional law and criminal procedure at Concordia University for 15 years.

I firmly believe that as Circuit Court judge you must firmly and accurately speak the truth, not bend or distort it. The growing pattern of misleading statements from my opponent has no place in Wisconsin judicial elections, and is reminiscent of the “politics” as usual he says he wants to avoid.
Gene Gasiorkiewicz's response, March 18:
I am greatly disappointed at this desperate attempt by my opponent to make herself look more qualified by resorting to negative political attacks. Her claims are simply not true, and this sort of negative personal attack is exactly what is driving voter dissatisfaction with politics today.

First, as an attorney with over 34 years of professional experience in nearly every area of the law, I can understand why my opponent cannot recall some of my activities. I was practicing and lecturing on law before she was out of high school. Her claims that, while digging through my past looking for political ammunition, she was unable to find some records to verify some of my experience are the classic tactics of a desperate campaign. Though I don't doubt the zeal of her search, just because she was unable to locate some documents does not mean she is correct.

Regarding her claims related to comparing her appearances in Circuit Court to mine, I stand my my numbers. Furthermore, the Circuit Court records actually understate the full breadth of my experience in Circuit Court, because those records do not go back far enough to track my entire career. The voters clearly have the right to know and compare the level of relevant experience each of us has in the very courts we aspire to preside over. The numbers in my literature fairly and accurately compare our relative Circuit Court appearances over the past decade. The source of these numbers is also present on my literature in case voters wish to review the basis for my conclusions. While my opponent would like to make it seem as though she has much more experience in many areas of the law than I, the facts do not support her claims.

Her assertion that I have never been a special prosecutor is also false. Her claim on her website that she is the only candidate with prosecutorial experience is also false. I prosecuted cases for Racine County Corporation Counsel in 1973, under Dennis Flynn. I have also prosecuted cases for Caledonia, which can be verified by Retired Chief Tomachek. In the late 1970s or early 1980s, I was appointed a special prosecutor by Gerald Ptacek (who, though a supporter of my opponent, I understand acknowledges my appointment). My opponent's documentation referring to her searches on CCAP fail to produce results for my activities before 1992 because Racine County only began using the CCAP system in 1992.

My family has a long history of serving at UW-Parkside. Despite the claims of my opponent, I did in fact serve as a Lecturer at UW-Parkside in academic year 1977-78. Among others who can likely recall my time there is my father, who is an Emeritus Professor at UW-P. As it turns out, you don't have to take my word for it, because after contacting the University, they have provided me with documentation that proves my opponent's claims to be untrue. (The letter from Sylvia Coronado-Romero of UW-P.)

Clearly, my opponent's campaign is making these claims in a desperate attempt to avoid being rejected by the voters once again. While she continues to make personal attacks, I stand by my record.
UPDATE: Georgia Herrera issued the following statement on March 19, after receiving the retraction and correction from UW-Parkside interim associate provost Dennis M. Rome printed at the top of this post:
We just received the attached correction from University of Wisconsin Parkside. Apparently they dug deeper into old records in Madison and found that over 30 years ago my opponent was a lecturer at Parkside in the academic year 1977-78.

I spoke with Interim Associate Provost Rome, who informed me the class appeared to be Labor Economics. I wanted you to have this as soon as I received it. While this correction is important, it does not support the impression left by my opponent’s statements at forums and the implication of his campaign brochure that this teaching experience is recent, ongoing, or significant. This is especially true when it is stacked up against my ongoing and 15 years of teaching Constitutional Law and Criminal Procedure at Concordia University.

I want this campaign to be based on facts so that the voters are fully and completely informed when they cast their ballots for their next judge.
Check the candidates' websites for more. (Photos above from Saturday's St. Patrick's Day Parade.)
Gene Gasiorkiewicz's is here.

Georgia Herrera's is here.

87 comments:

  1. This is more than an instance of he said/she said.
    A candidate for judge did not do the appropriate research before making a public statememnt.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The correct headline should read - "She lied" or "Herrera proven wrong"

    "He said, she said" infers that someone laid out some accusations that can not be proven true or false. It appears he has provided proof.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What is the capital of Georgia? Sheliesistan

    ReplyDelete
  4. This kind of mudslinging is so unprofessional, and it's not the first time Georgia has used this tactic when running for office. Gene is by far the more qualified candidate for judge. If Georgia can't properly research her claims before publicly making (false) allegations in something as important as the election, what makes you think she's going to properly research cases as a judge before making decisions on people's lives?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Georgia was willing to convict Gene of falsifying his resume with a complete lack of evidence. That's not exactly a quality I look for in a judge.

    ReplyDelete
  6. With the way she is willing to lie and distort the truth, Georgia shouldn't go for judge - she would be much better with a job at Wheaton PR or reporting for the Journal Times. She'd fit right in.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gene definitely has my vote. We don't need a liar as a judge.

    ReplyDelete
  8. She's desperate

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is what the police endorsements get in exchange for allowing Georgia to use their names:
    "Herrera defends decision to release juvenile suspect"
    Herrera defends decision to release juvenile suspect

    ReplyDelete
  10. Another judicial election, another slanderous comment by Georgia. This time she falsely claimed opponent Michael Piontek had filed for bankruptcy:

    He said, she said in judge's race

    ReplyDelete
  11. Michael Kroes3/19/2010 8:22 AM

    I was going to vote for Gene anyway. I agree it does appear that his opponent is exhibiting signs of desperation. Her "research" or lack thereof is not helping here out in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Georgia has put the last nail into her coffin. Georgia - adios.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This behavior is why so many people that used to support Georgia want nothing to do with her now. Sadly this has become common behavior for her now.

    Even though I have known Georgia for years, Gene gets my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am gonna have to vote for a write in candidate. I cannot give either of these two my approval to sit in judgment of our community's members.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dustin and Pete - this is not a she said, he said. That is a very slanted headline. What she said was a lie - and the records confirm that. Please change the headline or is that your way of endorsing Georgia???

    ReplyDelete
  16. Campaign 101: If you make a statement about your opponent-have the facts straight. Ms Herrera has flunked.

    Attacking Gasiorkiewicz on his experience is just stupid politics because even she knows it is where he is her superior.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Statements aside, look at the pictures! Dress for the job you want ladies and gentlemen. Only one looks the part. 'Nuff said.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm really sad to see this. I recently drafted a letter on this campaign that said both candidates deserved credit for staying positive. Shows what I know. Apparently the one thing she could not afford to do is the one thing she could not resist doing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Is there a third choice?

    ReplyDelete
  20. anon 10:23 - was thinking the same thing. I realize this picture was taken at the parade...but geez...try to clean up a bit for the public, Ms. Herrera. You're running for judge!

    ReplyDelete
  21. There is no question that there need to be more women elected to the bench, that idea alone is worth looking very closely at Herrera's newest run for office and giving it full consideration.

    However, she has not learned the lessons she should have from her last defeat. In 2004 she was accused of slandering another candidate making her look petty and mean. She courted political endorsements from elected officials making her look like she was trading favors from political friends. In 2010 she is using the same playbook.

    Clearly, her facts are not correct and it was a grave miscalculation for her to make it an issue. Instead of appealing to voters with her qualifications she has chosen to tar her opponent and has only succeeded in lowering herself...again.

    I will be voting for Gene. I am hoping good women candidates will continue to run for office in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon 11:30....
    "There is no question that there need to be more women elected to the bench, that idea alone is worth looking very closely at Herrera's newest run for office and giving it full consideration."

    Why is there NO Question? Please explain that statement. If QUALIFIED women ran for the office and were eliminated solely because of being a woman you might have a point, but you don't. Being female alone inspite of poor qualifications does in no way entitle you to any office or position. This is not a matter to be decided on what gender you are, it should go to the most qualified PERSON, period. That inane idea aside, Herrera has demonstrated again why so many of us that have infact worked with her over the years are now supporting Gene for this election. After her foot-in-mouth accusations in 2004 I supported her opponent. This time I immediately supported Gene and Georgia again reaffirmed my choice and opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 11:51 easy does it friend...

    All I'm saying is that the bench should hopefully represent the community at large, which means electing more women and minorities. Many people in the community are excited to support a woman for office. I just happen to think Herrera is not the right candidate.

    Whether you agree with that point of view or not doesn't mean some people don't share it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Frankly, I will support what ever PERSON is the most qualified, male, female, white, black, brown, catholic, jewish, what ever. The mindset exhibited that a woman or minority is automaticaly entitled to an elected post only because of their gender or minority classification is just reverse discrimination. It's not about filling a quota or reaching a ratio of minorities on the bench which is the same as in the community. We only have lawyers to pick from when electing a judge which eliminated 99.9% of the rest of the community. Within that demographic I am certain you will not find the racial or gender diversity you wish to see in our elected judges. This is a matter of two lawyers going after the same job. Not man vs woman, white vs quasi hispanic, it is all about the qualifications required for the job alone.

    ReplyDelete
  25. She for sure does not have my vote now. Thanks Racine Post for helping me make up my mind. Gene, you have my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  26. So now Herrera retracts her statement? So sorry, My husband got a bad tip while digging up dirt on my opponent. Seriously, according to her website the inquiries were made by her husband. Is that laziness or what? Maybe her husband should be running instead.

    Can you spell empty suit?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Has everyone's brains been replaced by grilled cheese sandwiches? Gene clearly is doing some back tracking on his statements. Yes, Georgia was incorrect about the Parkside thing (possibly, although journalism 101: parents of people in question aren't exactly reliable sources) but it seems like more of an issue with parkside giving her the wrong information. And his "years of experience" was like a billion years ago, so I don't see how it is relevant. Of course they don't have records of his employment BECAUSE IT WAS DECADES AGO. I am shocked that the people of Racine would want a washed up politician vs. someone who has recent experience.

    P.S. Cheap shots of the way she's dressed? Really people of Racine? (or I should say person because it's pretty obvious that most, if not all, of the previous comments were made by the same person. Gene, is that you?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Frankly, I prefer an individual who is unafraid to bring discrepancies to light. The only reason everyone is "blasting" Georgia is because Parkside gave her inaccurate information which she reported as fact. I do think that is was underhanded of Gene to reference CCAP when he was fully aware that his opponent's long and reputable career won't be evidenced there due to the fact it is in court that carries greater confidentiality. I do think that citing 30 year old resume fodder as up-to-date qualifications is misleading.

    ReplyDelete
  29. She's basically right. Looks like a lot of liberally expanded resume-creep to me.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Damage done. Say your opponent filed bankruptcy and then claim you never said it. Say your opponent lied about teaching and then claim you got bad info.

    Is anything her fault? Really, this for a judges position not Miss Know-It-All.

    A lifetime of experience is exactly the kind needed for being a judge. Rushing to condemn without all the facts is an absurd qualification for a judge and not worthy of the position.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Is Georgia so insecure about her position in the race that she has to go and try and dig up dirt? Why was she even checking on his record to begin with? Aren't the issues enough to run off her platform? Oh, that's right. she has no platform or dignity.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Who is that homeless woman in the first picture?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dustin and Pete - Change your headline Georgia lovers.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Although I agree that a "lifetime of experience" is important, Gene failed to cite any recent relevant experience. He was trying to play off his few years here and few years there as something to fall back on. County Corporation Council in 1973? "Special Prosecutor" In 1970's OR early 1980's (not quite sure what the "or" means). And he was a instructor at Parkside for 1 year over 30 years ago. So yes, I would not vote for someone who has all this "relevant" experience from way before I was even born.

    Put it this way, if you were getting brain surgery from a surgeon who performed the same operation 35 years ago for a very brief period of time, would you let them cut your brain open?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Amusing, if completely overwrought example. Gene has the experience, awards and recognition three-fold over Herrera. How about this: google Herrera, you can't even find an office address!

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  37. 1:42 As long as the hypothetical surgeon was not Georgia!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thanks for the updates. I've decided to vote for Gene after reading this.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Me too. I am interested in what a person stands for. This episode was not flattering.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This is really pathetic. All you Gene cheerleaders are not convincing me one bit. He taught in 1978. I don't have anything on my resume going back that far. I think he is trying to mislead us by making it sound recent. His graphs were way off. Both these candidates are a mess. Who ever wins won't be because I voted for them.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dustin,
    please change the title of this post. You have deleted other comments for lees offensive material - 7:34 should be deleted for sheer ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The Journal Times actually has the high ground on this story.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The first paragraphs of Georgia's March 17 statement:
    "The voters rightly expect that judicial candidates won’t mislead them. I believe the public rightly holds us to the highest standard in our campaign statements and literature. I wouldn’t raise this issue if it was one incident, but I have now seen a concerning pattern of misleading statements from my opponent on several issues."

    Hello?? These statements are a description of her own behavior, not Gene's. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black....
    If we're unlucky enough to end up with Georgia as the elected judge and sitting on the bench, you can be sure Jeff Leavell will be calling the shots.

    Georgia's behavior shows she has zero class. Vote for Gene!!!

    ReplyDelete
  44. The cheap shots regarding the clothing being worn by a candidate shows complete and utter ignorance. It was a flippin parade. Stick to the issues. Georgia's opponent has a knack for exaggerating the truth, grandstanding, claiming that he has recent relevant experience when he doesn't....... every voter needs to do their own research and make up their own mind..........

    ReplyDelete
  45. This is indeed more than he said she said.......for starters, .a judicial candidate should not be overstating his qualifications and misleading the voting public. I attended a forum where Georgia's opponent claimed he CREATED trucking law, I have yet to find that law...... hmmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  46. If you consider a year long teaching position 30+ years ago relevant to the year 2010, you need to think again....... Georgia is right for bringing this to light. A prospective employer wouldn't stand for Gene's sloppy, exaggerated resume, why should the voting public???

    ReplyDelete
  47. A prospective employer (me) isn't interested in candidates who condemn others with false information...especially if they want to be a judge.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anon 9:44

    Go and file some more open records claims. The only thing sloppy here is fact checking.

    When you add self-induldged, emotive, unsteady and failed attempt after failed attempt you get the need to go on a hunt.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Gene is misleading the voting public - in addition, I am offended that Gene would include a short teaching stint from 30++ years ago on his qualifications. Voters, ask yourself why Gene doesn't include many dates in his qualifications? I was undecided, however, after checking the facts, my own checking, my vote is for Herrera, her opponent is intentionally misleading voters in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Gene has been spinning and exaggerating the truth about himself all along - however, now, the Gene supporters come out as offended that someone would question his qualifications. My question, is what took so long to expose this guy????? It's about time.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thanks Georgia for questioning your opponent's qualifications - I can't understand why it took you so long! I am sure that your opponent will appear wronged now or somehow feel like he has been slighted - however, good for you for having the courage to bring this up. Perhaps now both candidates can concentrate on showing the voting public what their skills and abilities are. Gene, you know darn well you have been misleading the public about your qualifications and you have been having your cronies write a bunch of useless trash about Georgia - time to stop now.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I am certain that Georgia looked into her opponent's qualifications because he has been blatantly misleading the voting public. Give me a break, the guy is reaching, and that is putting it lightly.

    ReplyDelete
  53. This isn't falsifying a resume - it's lying. Gene has curiously omitted dates from many of his 'qualifications' - I know why - because so many of his experiences would be considered antiques! Can you say irrelevant?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Georgia may now have a track record of slime. Last time she ran (2004) and now again. Where there is smoke - there is usually fire.

    The benefit of the doubt for her has expired. Blame her or her husband or whoever. This appears to be opportunistic, ego-driven and manipulative.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I am more of a Herrera supporter today than I was before I saw this article. Good for you GEORGIA for bringing this up. Anyone that has been in Racine for any amount of time knows that your opponent is exaggerating the truth on his teaching and prosecutorial experience, to name only a few, in an attempt to try and match your solid qualifications.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Gene has been mudslinging all along. Can you say CCAP??? Oh, but that's right, he would not call his tactics mudslinging, he would embellish and call his tactics something else.

    ReplyDelete
  57. As for Gene, he has been misrepresenting himself for a long time; based on his self proclaimed qualifications I bet it was Gene and NOT AL Gore that created the internet!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Former Herrera Supporter3/19/2010 10:54 PM

    Thank you for posting their website addresses. Comparing the two side by side is just an example of what each would bring to the bench one is pleading for your endorsements and votes especially in their picture. One campaign is recycling their political literature. signs etc from a failed 2004 campaign while the other is not a politician and is making a huge personal investment in an attempt for Our Community to have non-bias representation on the bench. I have been to their forums and honestly he did not say he CREATED trucking laws.

    I have an Herrera sign in my garage from 2004 and it looks exactly like her 2010 sign.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @9:38
    Clothing does matter if you are running for a public office. Even in a parade, maybe even more so in a parade because you are in front of so many people. Have you ever seen any serious candidate dress like that, ever? You think Paul Ryan would ever dress like that? How about Feingold? Never.

    If you want to be a judge you better be able to be a good judge of character and be able to see other people's abilities clearly. She obviously failed this by taking some false information and running with it before double checking it. That's impulsive behavior and there is no place for that on the bench along with no place for poor judges of character.

    She has also now turned this into such a stereotypical gender based race between the "he" and the "she" by seeming like an old stereotype of the whining woman while the "he" in the race seems to be holding to making statements in a clear and businesslike manner. She is not doing women in general any favor right now.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I count about eight posts in the last hour which seem to have been written by the same person repeating the same thing. I don't really have anything against Georgia Herrera, but it takes an act of willful fantasy to characterize her credentials as "solid." This candidate is very interested in being a judge but has apparently never had much of an interest in being a lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The "Gene is misrepresenting his experience" is a good try at saving face, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

    I also like the thank you's to Georgia for "bringing this to our attention" like smearing your opponent and then getting caught when you're wrong is a virtue.

    I pay attention and I haven't heard one single quote by Gasiorkiewicz that trashes Herrera, and the only mud-slinging I've heard is from her camp.

    If she gets criticized here it's because SHE made this an issue. Deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I don't want some slick (empty) suit judge. I'll take a woman of the people. She looks like you and me, she'll rule for you and me.

    ReplyDelete
  63. It appears Georgia does not believe she needs to conform her behavior to Supreme Court Rule 60.06, "A Judge or Judicial Candidate Shall Refrain From Inappropriate Political Activity."

    "Misrepresentations:
    A candidate for judicial office should restrict his or her comments concerning an opposing candidate to matters which are relevant to the opponent’s integrity, impartiality, judicial philosophy and temperament, legal ability and industry.
    A candidate for judicial office shall not knowingly make representations that, although true, are misleading, or knowingly make statements that are likely to confuse the public with respect to the proper role of judges and lawyers in the American adversary system.
    A candidate for judicial office shall not knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position or any other fact concerning the
    judge or candidate or his or her opponent.
    "

    She has a long, long history of 'trashing' her opponents at every opportunity. I find it incredible her supporters find this behavior and obvious lack of integrity acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "A candidate for judicial office shall not knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position or any other fact concerning the judge or candidate or his or her opponent."

    Sounds like he's got the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  65. I am voting for Gene3/20/2010 4:48 AM

    This is a campaign and unfortunately there will be a winner and a loser. I can hardly believe that what everyone says here is going to matter at the polls. Those who are posting have already made their decision who they are voting for.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Gene has been stretching the truth and misleading the public - deal with it for what it is......underhanded

    ReplyDelete
  67. These comments are getting way out of line, for and against both candidates.
    Georgia makes public statements about her opponent which turn out to be false, and she's then praised for revealing these "important facts"?
    Judges do not "prosecute" cases, so who cares how much prosecution experience or even defense experience a candidate does or does not have? There is much more to the court system than criminal law. A judge must be neutral, listen to both sides in any case, and decide fairly - without any biases for or against either party.
    We all have to look at the whole picture, not bits and pieces.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Most of the people blogging here have already made up their minds. But for a few who have not, I urge you to take this into consideration: this thread would not be here if Ms. Herrera had not made an issue of information on Mr. Gasiorkiewicz's resume from more than 30 years ago. Her accusation turned out to be false, she was wrong. Her supporters here and on the JT deflect her culpability by saying he has inflated his experience and calling him names like "ambulance chaser". I think they do more harm than good.


    In 2004 she said one of her primary opponents filed for bankruptcy and was again wrong. http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/article_4e800f3a-c9d6-5bea-8479-1da7c100761a.html I would like to think after this one would learn to be more cautious. What is so lacking in her character and qualifications that her campaign has resorted to denigrating her opponent?


    I am also troubled by her courting of elected officials for endorsements. It is illegal for Federal employees to do this under the Hatch Act. While it may not be a big issue for some it has repercussions: In 2004 she was accused of releasing a police supervisors son while working as a court commissioner. http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/article_49e57791-c9ae-59cc-93aa-9fca4562abbb.html To some it looked like favoritism and would never have been an issue if she had not been courting police department support so vigorously in her campaign then. This is what happens when it looks like you owe favors to people who endorsed you in your campaign.


    These are not rumors or gossip they are verifiable news items. Her campaign has made a disastrous choice in following this path and voters should hold her accountable.

    ReplyDelete
  69. so Gene you state you taught at parkside labor Economics in the 70s What about lately. If you didn't know the year is 2010, and special
    prosecutor" in the 70s also how current are you with the decade law
    and you must lot of time on your hands to write all of these Anonymous said... right Gene

    ReplyDelete
  70. Bill: I wrote the previous post and I'm just a regular guy who hasn't met either candidate.

    I read both websites and the idea that Mr. Gasiorkiewicz hasn't been practicing law since he was at Parkside is just silly and beneath your candidate to make as a defense.

    But please keep bringing it up because more and more people will check out their campaign websites for themselves. Leaving your accusations looking even more desperate. (BTW where is her office or law practice website? I Binged it and got nothing.)

    I had hoped this race would be between two good if different candidates. I am shocked and disappointed at the way Herrera has run this race, dirty politics fail the public.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Dirty politics or enlightening politics? I believe that Gene has been less than truthful about some of his qualifications which is disappointing.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Wow, less than truthful. That's pretty harsh. At least he didn't publicly accuse his opponent of lying about her record, having to retract it hours later...cause that would be...okay!?

    Please go to Gene's website and see his awards and experience, even if only half of it was true it still would be more than Herrera's.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "even if only half of it was true it still would be more than Herrera's"

    are you kidding me? so its okay for a candidate to lie about his credentials? I rather have a judge that would come out to tell the public what type of person this person is. A total fake. I can't believe you people that would vote for gene when he has total blown his credentials out of the water. People get brains.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Over stating qualifications and intentionally misleading the public is equal to lying in my opinion. I will no longer consider votring for Gene. What else is he embellishing??

    ReplyDelete
  75. The headline is quite accurate. Gasiorkiewicz has refuted Herrera. "Refute" doesn't mean "dispute", it means "demonstrate falsity", and Gasiorkiewicz has demonstrated that Herrera's charges are false.

    ReplyDelete
  76. A judge is supposed to gather all the facts, impartially and render a fair decision.

    Do we really need to review the most basic part of the process for Herrera before election day? Yikes.

    Her rush to judgment cost her another election.

    ReplyDelete
  77. re: 3/21/2010 10:12 AM

    I highly doubt that. There wouldn't have been an issue if Gene wouldn't have lied. Someone who taught in 1978 hmm If he lies about his campaign what is he capable of, say another Becker instance.....

    ReplyDelete
  78. I am voting for Gene3/21/2010 9:05 PM

    There are no lies and no deception it is all made up because someone hates to lose. This is her last shot and she knows it. This is called a desperate attempt of misleading the voters. Do you remember what Bush and Rove did to McCain in his first run for the Presidency of the United States? The difference between Gene and McCain are pretty clear - he stood up and defended himself. Gene will win because he has taken the high road. Get over it!

    ReplyDelete
  79. directed at 10:12Am

    I don't know who you are but if you drag something as disgusting as Becker into this debate and then expect people to support Herrera you are really off course. That was about the lowest thing I've heard in a long time in local politics.
    Until now this has been just a very amusing tit for tat I've been keeping up with (who really puts that much on a judicial race, anyway?) now I will go out of my way to support Gene.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I can't understand why anyone would bring Becker into this, that's just plain odd. I have taught my young children that lying is wrong, further, they know that telling half truths is equally wrong. In my opinion, Gene is doing just that, telling half truths and misleading the public, it's wrong!!! He will not get my vote

    ReplyDelete
  81. 11:51 Sick is the word that comes to my mind. Suggesting that either candidate has an illness such as the one Becker carries around is just disturbing. His name or behavior should not be associated with either of these candidates. Your children are the future voters of this country so how do you explain both Bush's and Obama to them? "Read my lips - No new taxes?" etc. Maybe Gene should be more specific and tell you how many lawyers he has taught the law to and how often currently in his practical experience as it is relavent to his leadership ability. I wouldn't be surprised if Georgia was at a seminar where he has taught and has just omitted this from her campaign materials because al lawyers have to participate and earn continuing education credits to keep their licenses.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Herrera lists Jim and Joyce Smith, Lorna George, and Doug Dresen as people giving her endorsments on her website. There is no way I would ever vote for anyone who is asscociated with those people.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Georgia is clearly lacking any rational judgment if she thinks Jim and Joyce Smith or Lorna George have any credibility with the voters of Racine.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Some of you must have not ever looked for a job. When you fill out a resume you are trying to sell yourself for a position. You are going to put down anything (that is true) that wiil assits you in securing the position. All Gene has listed is correct and is what any other person who has any knowledge of resume's or job hunting would know that. What Gene has not done out of desperation is to try to dig up dirt or supposed untruths about his opponent. I fully endorse Gene.

    ReplyDelete
  85. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I just got a Georgia mailing today. She is proudly endorsed by Caledonia chief Jeff Meier. There is a ringing endorsement for her quality.

    Just another reason to not vote for Georgia.

    ReplyDelete
  87. I am voting for Herrera. She has the right experience and credentials to be our next Circuit Court Judge!

    ReplyDelete